Do You Know? Do You Believe? How Gullible are You?

Click on your choice of the links below to take one of the Museum of Hoaxes' gullibility tests:
Science & nature test
History & culture test
Once you've taken one of the tests, create a post to report your score, then reflect on what the test and your performance have to say about the nature of knowledge, truth, belief, and/or justification (i.e. "good reasons," to use Abel's term).

Welcome to TOK-OC Online 2008-09

TOK is not intended to be "just another" academic class that lacks any apparent connection or relevance to your current life. To the contrary, TOK is intended to be an opportunity for you to synthesize your learning from both inside and outside of school, and to more fully integrate those ideas and insights into your way of thinking. The purpose of the TOK-OC journal/blog is two-fold: A) to encourage you to look for and make connections between the ideas that we've considered in class and your experiences & observations outside of the classroom; and
B) to serve as a place for you to record and reflect on some of these “real world” connections.
Please check the class policies sheet for more information about the purpose and expectations for the journal/blog.

So, here's how I envision this working...I will post items here that are both appropriate and potentially effective as topics for a TOK-OC journal entry. I will also pose some questions or comments to jump-start your thinking about the knowledge issue(s) implicit in each item. You can then post a comment reflecting on the knowledge issues raised (this can include additional knowledge issues that you identify). Or you may respond to other students' comments, using them as jumping off points for adding your own comments. You may make multiple comments on the same posting, thus creating a dialogue with other students. All of your comments on a particular posting will be considered as a single journal entry; consequently, multiple comments may improve your score for that "entry."

Your comments will be scored based on: a) knowledge issues you identify and address; b) the quality of thought and reflection evident in your comments; and c) the level of respect and consideration you demonstrate toward other viewpoints. [It should go without saying that comments that fail miserably on the last criterion will be removed by the moderator, but I'll say it just to make sure everyone understands.] (Reminder: Quality is valued over quantity...but they are often related.)

Mysteries of Stonehenge

CLICK HERE to visit National Geographic Magazine's recent exploration of Stonehenge and it's purpose or significance. Consider the knowledge claims made in this feature about what Stonehenge is/was and compare them against the various claims that have been made in the past (e.g. religious shrine, giant clock, monument built by aliens, etc.). What do you think you know about Stonehenge? How does that compare to the knowledge claims discussed in the National Geographic feature? It might be interesting, from a TOK perspective, to take their 10 question "Stonehenge Quiz" before reading the article. (CLICK HERE for the quiz.)

Which came first, language or perception?

The title of this post is intended to be a play on the old philosophical question, Which came first - the chicken or the egg? CLICK HERE to go to the New York Times article, "When language can hold the answer," discussing research findings on the role language may play in sense perception, including things as basic as recognizing colors. Use the article as a prompt to reflect on the relationship between these two Ways of Knowing.

Additional writings about this subject can be found at:
"Hues & Views: A cross-cultural study reveals how language shapes color perception"
"Do our languages shape the nuts and bolts of perception, the very way we see the world?" (Scroll down to the second response/entry on this page. Interestingly, this statement was made by Professor Boroditsky in response to the very TOK-ish question, "What have you changed your mind about?"
"Reframing: How language shapes perception" (this "article" is really a blog posting, and the blogger has an
interesting background/perspective that is worth thinking and reflecting about)

Just how gullible are you?

Visit the Museum of Hoaxes (www.museumofhoaxes) and take one of the "hoax photo tests" or one of the "gullibility tests." You will find the links for them in the second row of links at the top of the site's home page. Report your score and comment on: a) the significance and implications of your performance on the test, or b) test items you found interesting, confounding, or even that you disagree with the site's answer for.

'Demons in the Dark:' How science talks about UFO's

CLICK HERE to read a scientific perspective on the UFO sightings in a Texas town that were the focus of the February 2nd post on this blog.

Click here to view the video that accompanies this story on the Newsweek website.

Truth, Lies, & War

Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'

Click HERE to read about a study contending that the Bush administration made 935 false statements (read 'statements' as 'knowledge claims' in TOK parlance) over a two-year time period as it made its case for going to war in Iraq. [As you reflect and respond, resist the urge to pursue the political partisan angle of the story. Focus more on issues of knowledge, truth, justification, belief, certainty, etc.)

Happy Valentine's Day, TOK-style!

Love More About Science than Luck

Check out the story at the following link: "The Science Behind Falling in Love"
The accompanying can be seen by clicking HERE.

My Nose, My Brain, My Truth

Check out the article about the connection between senses, truth, and knowledge at the link below:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1702365,00.html

"...And fifteen minutes ago, you KNEW that humans were alone..."

The town of Stephenville, Texas was recently in the national news because a number of townspeople publicly claimed to have seen a UFO on several different nights. After initially saying there were no military jets in that area when the sightings occurred, the military later announced that Navy F-16's were training in that area. Ironically, the people who claimed to have seen the UFO said the second announcement served as proof for their claim. The following links will take you to two news stories with accompanying video clips about the controversy.

Dozens in Texas town report seeing UFO

Officials: UFO sightings were military jets

Questions & issues to consider:

• Do you believe the townspeople's claim that they saw a UFO? Why or why not?
• If you don't believe them, what would it take for you to be convinced that they are right? What kind of evidence (justifications) would you require, and why?
• What role do you see the concepts of "epistemic certainty" and "psychological certainty" playing in this story?
• To what degree is your willingness (or unwillingness) to believe the townspeople a reflection of your prior knowledge and beliefs? To what degree is that appropriate and/or reasonable? Are your prior knowledge and beliefs a help or a hinderance to you in evaluating the knowledge claims presented in this story? Elaborate.
• Consider/evaluate the role that sense perception plays in this incident. Do you consider the sense perception of the townspeople a reliable justification? Why or why not?

"Men in Black" on Knowledge

During one of our discussions on the nature of knowledge earlier this semester, I showed a clip from the movie "Men in Black," where Tommy Lee Jones' character makes some comments about knowledge and the way people handle knowledge. Unfortunately, the only individuals who offered any comment in class couldn't seem to move past their (apparent) excitement about the movie itself. So, with a little more time, knowledge, and thought under our collective belts, I thought I would offer another opportunity to comment on the clip.

Trying to convince soon-to-be Agent J (Will Smith's character) to join his agency, Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones' character) says to him: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Everything they've ever 'known' has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it....Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Click here to see a video of this scene, as well as some other clips from the movie that the person who posted this on YouTube describes as "...important knowledge scenes you need to see...."


Issues & questions to consider:

1) What does the word "know," in the various forms used in this quote from the third sentence on, mean? Is it referring to knowledge as philosophy has traditionally defined it?

2) Does the word "know," as it is used from the third sentence on, mean the same thing as Agent K's use of know in the second sentence? What do you make of this apparent irony?

3) What does Agent K's statement imply about the nature of human knowledge? Is it progressive? Is it provisional? How would you describe the nature of the knowledge claims Agent K refers to from 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, and 15 minutes ago?

4) What does Agent K's statement imply about the value and/or validity of "consensus gentium" (or "common sense") as a basis, or "good reason," for claiming to know something?

Real DaVinci Code?

Questions & issues to consider:



1) How credible do you find this theory to be? Why? What is the basis for your judgment?

2)What would it take for you to be able to say that you know that this is, or is not, the true DaVinci Code?

3) What do you believe about the claim, any claim, that there really is a DaVinci Code? Why? What is the basis for your claim? Are you willing to say that you know that there really is, or is not, a DaVinci Code of some kind? On what basis?

Catbert on Knowledge

For a larger version, simply click on the comic strip above.

Questions & issues to consider:

A) In the third frame, Catbert says, "Stress is just another word for knowledge." What does this comment imply about knowledge (e.g. its nature, its basis, its consequences, etc.)? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

B) In the fourth frame, Catbert asks the quintessential TOK question, "How do I know that?" about his (her?) statement from the third frame. But are there any frames in the strip that the question would not apply to? What does this say about the nature of knowledge, or knowing?

C) What do you make of the mantra that Catbert recites in the next to last frame of the strip? What do you conclude is the artist's message here? Do you agree or disagree? Why?